I've been thinking about my answer above, and maybe I should expand on comprehensive.

A kit should comprise of:

- Test Meter
- Test Sensors (usually 25 or 50 to get you started)
- Needles (usually 25 or 50 to get you started)
- Finger pricker
- Booklet or sheet on which to record your results

I also think that I should qualify the needle bit, just in case that puts you off. It is basically a very small pin that slots in to the finger pricker. You will feel a small scratch, but nothing more. Being a tight git (?? I get my prescriptions free anyway as a diabetic), I tend to make a needle last for 4 tests (or one day).

As I said previously, it is the cost of replacement needles and sensors (and the availability - no point buying the machine if you can't get replacements) that you should be looking at.

I know a while has passed since the OP, but I have an update. Somehow, I realised that I wasn't going to have enough Metformin 500Mg tablets - I was going to be 22 short.

I re-read this thread (and a couple of others), and decided the Daily Pharmacy looked like a good bet. First update is they are no longer at 174/10 Phetkasem Road Hua Hin 77110. They have moved about 100 yards towards San Paulo.

The reports were good, the pharmacist was very good, with a good command of English.

Once again the best the misnamed 'healing profession' can do is treat (profitable) rather than cure (less profitable) diabetes and only offer people drugs for the rest of their lives (guarantees profit). These introduce side effects which require more drugs. (yet more profit).

Studies have consistently shown that poor nutrition is the single most important cause of diabetes, heart disease and cancer in affluent societies. Those countries eating high fiber, whole, plant-based foods are protected from and reverse diabetes.

In Thailand it is easy to adopt this kind of diet but people can't seem to do it. You hear the usual put-downs of healthy eating, as if it is manly to plough through a rib steak and unmanly to eat vegetable protein. The Meat and Dairy lobbies are so powerful in the U.S. that you will never hear the truth about nutrition. ANIMAL PROTEIN is a killer.

If Olympic athletes can do it and thrive, why can't the lard-bellies and sweet junkies overcome their sweet, meat and/or booze addictions and transform their lives?

I don't need answers, I've already hear them. It's not that they can't change. They just don't want to. Even when the surgeon has to start lopping off toes.

MrPlum,
Interesting post, if a little short on facts to back it up. I was always taught (at school and elsewhere) that humans are omnivores, and a balanced diet is the key to healthy living. I have also been told that there is something in meat that cannot be garnered from vegetables that the human body needs. I completely accept that most westerners do not eat 'properly' and this is a major cause of a number of illnesses, and also i know that it is better for the world's population if food production is focused on growing grains, vegetables etc rather than grazing animals, in both an economic and health perspective, but your rant does not really help convince anyone. If animal protein is so bad for us, how come other carnivores do not suffer the same consequences? Or are you really trying to say that we should aim at a more balanced diet, rather than all become vegans? A final point is that telling anyone to do this or do that against their will never works - they need to be persuaded through education; if they then make their choice maybe they don't want a long healthy life? It is supposed to be a free world, after all....

Wanderlust wrote:MrPlum,
Interesting post, if a little short on facts to back it up. I was always taught (at school and elsewhere) that humans are omnivores, and a balanced diet is the key to healthy living. I have also been told that there is something in meat that cannot be garnered from vegetables that the human body needs.

Wanderlust wrote:MrPlum,
I have also been told that there is something in meat that cannot be garnered from vegetables that the human body needs.

Perhaps it's the Growth Hormones? Or maybe the antibiotics? Stress Hormones? Colourings? The irradiation? The preservatives? Mad cow disease? The parasites? You never know there may even be some meat in there.

You shouldn't always believe what they teach you in school. The Meat, Milk and Dairy lobbies are very powerful and they have muddied the nutritional waters for many years.

To be fair I eat a little meat myself. Lost too much weight on a veggie/vegan diet. Although I think this was due to a lack of knowledge of how to prepare veggie food, than anything wrong with a plant-based diet. If Olympic athletes, elephants, hippos, rhinos and cows can thrive on a bit of foliage maybe we can too.

Anyway FWIW the book is a good read and will open your eyes about how the industry operates as well as clarify some of the nutritional confusion.

MrPlum,
Thanks for the link, although it is only a summary of the book. Maybe the book itself covers this question, but if you have read it maybe you can tell me - aren't comparisons between groups of people in vastly different countries, with vastly different lifestyles and environments, going to produce results that are really not very useful? In addition, does the human body not adjust to some extent over time to the fuel that it is being given? And wouldn't the introduction of a different fuel potentially cause more havoc than it is meant to cure? The reason I ask that last one in particular is because of what that book summary says about malnourished children in the Philippines and liver cancer; if extra protein was given to healthy children would they also have an increased risk of liver cancer, and has it been studied?
I'm not dismissing what you are saying, it's just that I have found over the years that one year eating one particular thing is apparently good for you and then all of a sudden some other report says it's actually bad, and this has been repeated endlessly with any number of foodstuffs. I think the old adage that 'too much of a good thing is bad for you' or 'everything in moderation' are probably the best way to proceed; maybe you will die at 90 instead of 105 if you had been a vegan/vegetarian but then again you might get hit by a bus whichever lifestyle you choose! The question to ask is whether the extra years of better health of life are worth what i see as the turgid diet that would have to be eaten to achieve it. As with many things, it is a personal choice.
One final point that you raise is this all powerful Meat, Milk and Dairy lobby - I think this can only apply to the USA because of the way the political system works there; I was born and grew up in the UK where I doubt they can have so much, if any, sway; the concepts of the British diet were established a long time before these groups became manifest anyway. Having said that, there was an increasing American influence on food outlets for a period of years when McDonalds etc arrived but they are probably way outnumbered by the number of Chinese and Indian restaurants and takeaways!

P.S. This thread needs our resident conspiracy theorist, Jockey, to run the rule over it

- aren't comparisons between groups of people in vastly different countries, with vastly different lifestyles and environments, going to produce results that are really not very useful?

Quite the reverse. 'The Nurses study', one of the largest in America was basically comparing like with like. i.e. meat eaters with meat eaters. One group ate 'low fat', the other the SAD (Standard American Diet). On the strength of the results they recommended a reduction in dietary fat to 30%. The result of this was that those on low fat diets had HIGHER levels of cholesterol because they were effectively replacing the missing fat with additional but leaner meat. There were no improvements in heart disease, cancer and diabetes outcomes as a result.

Low fat is a waste of money because fat isn't the real problem. Animal protein is. The Industries suppress this information. The medical industry too, since, if we were all well, how are they going to make a buck?

In addition, does the human body not adjust to some extent over time to the fuel that it is being given? And wouldn't the introduction of a different fuel potentially cause more havoc than it is meant to cure?

You can take the bottom of my shoe, boil it for a week, soak it in spices, beat it with a stick, bury it in the ground in hot charcoal, then scoff it and it will taste palatable. Of course the body can adjust to any food. The rule is Garbage in, garbage out. The body can only adjust up to a point but if it isn't getting the right combination of nutrients, we pay a price, even if it takes 50 years to manifest.

Affluent societies suffer the illnesses common to affluent societies. You can wriggle on the hook all you want but nature can't be conned.

One study repeated time and time again showed that you can intake many different toxins and chemicals and provided you have sufficient Vit D the body will cope with it no problem. When you introduce animal protein it BLOCKS the Vit D from doing its protective job.

The author does state that you can get away with 10% meat protein but if you are ill, no animal protein is better for recovery.

As long as there is nutritional confusion a lot of people can make a lot of claims. The book strips away this confusion. Buy it or if you are unwell come around to my place and borrow it. If you are just a tightwad, can't help you.

The question to ask is whether the extra years of better health of life are worth what i see as the turgid diet that would have to be eaten to achieve it. As with many things, it is a personal choice.

What turgid diet? I used to eat all the crap everyone else does. When you start to make changes, and they need to be gradual, you'll find your cravings and tastes will adjust quite naturally. I remember reaching a tipping point. Ate a bag of peaches and couldn't believe how amazing they were. Give me a Big Mac now and I'd puke.

I was born and grew up in the UK where I doubt they can have so much, if any, sway;

You are kidding. Look at the sacks of spuds waddling down the street. The Brits (I'm one too) have gone to pot. This is not simply due to meat but all the fructose corn syrup, refined oils, supermarket poisons, sodas (including 'diet' sodas which make you fat), ice cream, etc... They may call it food but it's food in name only. Over-priced sh**te in seductive packaging.

It's one of the reasons I'm in Thailand.

"Let no one who has the slightest desire to live in peace and quietness be tempted, under any circumstances, to enter upon the chivalrous task of trying to correct a popular error."---William Thoms

[i]Low fat is a waste of money because fat isn't the real problem. Animal protein is. The Industries suppress this information. The medical industry too, since, if we were all well, how are they going to make a buck?
Rubbish the medical industry recommend a good balanced diet meat vegetables and fruit. However fat is a problem I had a cholesterol problem grilled my food instead of frying it problem over

The body can only adjust up to a point but if it isn't getting the right combination of nutrients, we pay a price, even if it takes 50 years to manifest.
Again with a balanced diet no problem

I remember reaching a tipping point. Ate a bag of peaches and couldn't believe how amazing they were. Give me a Big Mac now and I'd puke. I agree fast foods with additives and colourants are more harmful

Look at the sacks of spuds waddling down the street. The Brits (I'm one too) have gone to pot. This is not simply due to meat but all the fructose corn syrup, refined oils, supermarket poisons, sodas (including 'diet' sodas which make you fat), ice cream, etc... They may call it food but it's food in name only. Over-priced sh**te in seductive packaging.
Again additives and a diet that is not balanced. I have seen so many books, essays and articles telling me what I should not eat if I took all their advice I would starve to death, a surfeit of anything for a long period will kill you a good balanced diet will prolong your life

There are currently 413 reviews of this book from customers on Amazon. As you would expect you get naysayers, competitors, egotists, instant believers, snipers from the rooftops.

Buy it if you want to know more and if you already have all the answers, don't.

'T. Colin Campbell has made a career of challenging the conventional wisdom around nutrition, and this book is the culmination of his work. His integrity, brilliance, and unflinching courage shine through every page.

The main point of this book is that most nutritional studies that we hear about in the media are poorly constructed because of what the author terms "scientific reductionism." That is, they attempt to pin down the effects of a single nutrient in isolation from all other aspects of diet and lifestyle.

While this is the "gold standard" for clinical trials in the pharmaceutical world, it just doesn't work when it comes to nutrition. Given that the Western diet is extremely high fat and high protein compared to most of the rest of the world, studies that examine slight variations in this diet (i.e., adding a few grams of fiber or substituting skim milk for full fat milk) are like comparing the mortality rates of people who smoke five packs of cigarettes a day vs. people who smoke only 97 cigarettes a day.

Campbell's research, which he describes in a very accessible and engaging fashion, has two tremendous advantages over the typical nutritional study. First, there is the China Study itself - a massive series of snapshots of the relationship between diet and disease in over 100 villages all over China. The rates of disease differ greatly from region to region, and Campbell and his research partners (including some of the most distinguished scholars and epidemiologists in the world) carefully correlated these differences with the varying diets of the communities.

It's not lazy "survey research" either - the researchers don't rely on their subjects' memory to determine what they ate and drank. The researchers also observed shopping patterns and took blood samples to cross-validate all the data.

The second amazing part of Campbell's research method is his refusal to accept any finding without taking it back to his lab and finding out how exactly it works. In other words, we discover in The China Study not only in what way, but precisely how, the foods we eat can either promote or compromise our health.

The book is part intellectual biography / hero's journey (although Campbell is always wonderfully humble - there's no trace of self-congratulation, just a deep gratitude for what he has experienced), part nutrition guide (the most honest and unflinching one you'll ever read), and part expose. The final section leaves no sacred cow standing, and names names! From the food industry, to the government, to academia, Campbell calmly reports on a coverup of nutritional truth so widespread and insidious that all citizens should be enraged.

I have a PhD in health education and a Masters in Public Health - and I can honestly say that no book has shaken my worldview like this one. Anyone interested in health - their own, or that of their family, friends, or community - must read this book and share it. Campbell has started a revolution. Skip this work at your own peril.

"Let no one who has the slightest desire to live in peace and quietness be tempted, under any circumstances, to enter upon the chivalrous task of trying to correct a popular error."---William Thoms

MrPlum,
Thank you for fleshing out the points a little more, but in your last post you quoted this

First, there is the China Study itself - a massive series of snapshots of the relationship between diet and disease in over 100 villages all over China. The rates of disease differ greatly from region to region, and Campbell and his research partners (including some of the most distinguished scholars and epidemiologists in the world) carefully correlated these differences with the varying diets of the communities.

This is what I meant about trying to make comparisons between groups of people in vastly different countries, with vastly different lifestyles and environments - Chinese villagers and people in the western world fit this pretty much I would say; different exposures to pollution; different weather conditions and housing/heating/cooling; different work, with one likely to be hard physical labour and the other anywhere from one end of the spectrum to the other; different availabilities of health care; different resistances to illness; and very likely a marked difference in life expectancy. I just don't accept that the results of the study of Chinese villagers could really relate that much to western society. Of course they eat different food as well but I don't know how that can be isolated as the defining factor, or how that can be expected to translate to the same results in the west.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the need to improve diet all over the world, and how that will improve health, just that it is a much more complex equation than just diet and nutrition I believe. And then there is an argument that says that maybe people should be allowed to die from diseases, malnutrition etc as it doesn't seem like there is enough resources to support the existing population, let alone a bigger one that will live longer...

I am sorry Mr Plum but to me he sounds like another crackpot to me.
You cannot compare the diets between east and west.
I believe there is one place in China or Mongolia where people live longer than anyehere else in the world. Did he test these I doubt it.
There are so many influences on the length of life across the world that it would be impossible to say his research would fit them all.
No medical authority has backed any of these studies/books to my limited knowledge
As I said in an earlier post a sensible balanced diet will help to prolong life and should keep you healthier.
There have been thousands of books on this subject all professing to have the answer.
I suppose they must make a good living out of it but there is very little other benfit to mankind.

Wanderlust wrote:MrPlum,
And then there is an argument that says that maybe people should be allowed to die from diseases, malnutrition etc as it doesn't seem like there is enough resources to support the existing population, let alone a bigger one that will live longer...

One interesting post blames wheat for all our ills. Another, the large quantities of processed foods and vegetable oils, sugars, flours, preservatives, petroleum based ingredients, artificial flavors, antibiotics and other poisons.

There were also a number of unreasonable attacks on the author. The industry has obviously released their attack dogs to discredit his findings.

The Nazis were into eugenics too.

Dr. Jacqueline Kasun, professor of economics at Humboldt State University in California, observes in her 1988 book The War Against Population that:

1.No more than 1-3% of the Earth's ice-free land area is occupied by humans.
2.Less than 11% of the Earth's ice-free land area is used for agriculture.
3.Somewhere between 8 and 22 times the current world population could support itself at the present standard of living, using present technology.
4.This leaves 50% of the Earth's land surface open to wildlife and conservation areas.

The lower limit of 8 times the current population (about 44 billion) has been considered as being perfectly workable.

The current food 'problem' is a manufactured one IMHO. Politics and speculators. Tell people the food is running out, they panic, start to hoard and guess what? The food starts to run out.

Bit like a run on the banks.

"Let no one who has the slightest desire to live in peace and quietness be tempted, under any circumstances, to enter upon the chivalrous task of trying to correct a popular error."---William Thoms